The amount remained the same until 1985. That year, the IEA's Lord Harris (who later became chairman of Forest[4]) wrote to BAT asking it "to join our top subscribers at £10,000 per annum, (BP, Shell, ICI, Beecham and McAlpine)".[5] To this BAT "proposed that in 1986 overall support of the Institute of Economic Affairs should be placed on a regular basis at a rate of £10,000 p.a".[6] This level of payment continued. The recommendation that year to the Board was for BAT to "subscribe £9,000 to the Institute of Economic Affairs, which, together with the Eagle Star subscription of £1,000 brings the overall Group support to £10,000".[7]

In 1987, the IEA received a further £10,000 from BAT[8] and then requested further financial assistance towards acquiring the freehold of 2 Lord North Street. BAT proposed donating a further £2,500 for four years (totalling £10,000).[9]

In requesting assistance from BAT, the IEA thanked them for being "among our strongest supporters over the years", who were "entitled to share the tributes paid to our success".[10]

In 1990, BAT's Board Minutes revealed that the IEA received £9,000 that year from the company.[11] It received the same amount - £9,000 - the following year,[12] although this was reduced by 50 per cent on the departure of the IEA's Director General, Graham Mather,[13] who was seen as close to BAT's Chairman Patrick Sheehy. By 1998, BAT's annual subscription to the IEA was £6,000.[14] But by 1999, the figure was £7,500. [15]

The Tobacco Industry's Preferred Think Tank

Tobacco industry documents reveal that Philip Morris identified the Institute of Economic Affairs as one of the UK based think tanks that could host an event or conference on "ETS Science / Junk Science" in the mid-1970s. Among the list was:

Another Philip Morris document from 1994 describes how the IEA "may be particularly useful for PM". [17] A year later, in May 1995, Philip Morris identified the IEA as one of seven think tanks and groups to assist in "policy outreach". The groups would "pro-actively relay our positions" and "relay ideas and establish an echo chamber for PM messages/responses addressing major issues facing
the company." [18]

In 1996, a document from BAT's Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Committee for its activities for the following year identified how under the topic of "Issues-based projects to focus regulators and opinion-leaders on a more appropriate agenda", BAT could "support initiatives by AGORA and Institute of Economic Affairs to promote a balanced perspective on public issues among opinion leaders". [19]

In 1998 John Blundell, the then-director of the IEA, wrote to the Tobacco Institute asking for an appointment during a visit to the US. Blundell wrote:

"The IEA provides rigorous analysis of vital economic and social issues to opinion leaders worldwide. It plays a central role in the international debate overtrade, regulation, labour markets, the environment, health care and education. The IEA offers a tremendous strategic advantage to the Tobacco Institute in today's global environment ... I believe you will find our work has a significant impact on US and international policy and merits your attention."[20]

History of Defending the Tobacco Industry

Rejecting the Advertising Ban

In 1997, the IEA's Roger Bate wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal Europe arguing that there was "mounting evidence" that cigarette advertising bans do not reduce smoking. Rather, argued Bate, they reduced jobs and limited the development of potentially "safer" tobacco products. Bate concluded that "for the moment tobacco advertising legislation may be politically expedient, but it does not reduce smoking". [21]

A month later, Bate penned another article in the same paper, entitled "The Marlboro man can't make you smoke". [22]

The following year, Bate wrote an article for the Financial Times that argued, "The European Union should scrap plans to ban tobacco advertising because such a move, far from reducing smoking, would lead to an increase in the activity". [23]

In 1999 the IEA published a study by Professor Hugh High of the University of Cape Town, defending tobacco advertising. The study argued that: "Banning advertising of tobacco would not curb smoking." [24] High also wrote about tobacco advertising in The Wall Street Journal Europe.[25]

Rejecting the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

"the restrictions proposed on smoking are substantial: guaranteed protection from passive smoking, tax to make up at least two-thirds of the pack price (a massive price rise for smokers in developing countries), a ban on vending machines, removal of tobacco from retail price indices, WHO approval of all chemicals in tobacco products, bans on all forms of advertising and sport sponsorship, bans on sales of cigarettes in packs under 20, no mention of 'light' or 'mild' to describe products, tobacco packaging to include at least 50 per cent coverage with anti-tobacco pictures and warnings, international legal compensation for 'victims' of tobacco . . . and the list goes on."[26]

Countering Scientific Committees

In preparation for the Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) in 1998 into environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), BAT prepared a "Plan for a UK ETS Programme". Part of the plan was to "Prompt discussion in the media of risk assessment and the subjugation of science in favour of politics by governments around the world . (EDIT Tie into the contacts of the Social Affairs Unit and Institute of Economic Affairs)". [27]

Working With BAT Against GATT

In 1999, BAT was becoming worried about negotiations at the World Trade Organisation pertaining to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). One document noted that:

"The attempt by environmental campaigners, both in government and outside, to green the GATT has worrying implications for trade. Factions within the EU and the USA have promoted the notion that individual countries should be able to restrict imports of goods made with technologies deemed to be environmentally damaging ... Fred Smith, Julian Morris, Ray Evans, Roger Bate and Francois-Xavier Perroud met in early May to discuss how to challenge the green agenda, and especially how to present our arguments to developing countries. We aim to combat this green agenda (probably via papers, op-eds, meetings with LDC Trade officials, conferences and speaker tours) and will meet in Washington DC on 23rd /24th June 1999 to devise our overall strategy and tactics for the coming years. Those to attend include:

Attacking the WHO

In 2002 it was revealed that the writer and philosopher Roger Scruton, who wrote a pamphlet by the IEA attacking the World Health Organisation in 2000 for its campaign against tobacco, was on the payroll of Japan Tobacco International.[29]

Scruton was forced to admit that he should have “declared an interest". He was subsequently sacked as a columnist by the Financial Times. He told the British Medical Journal: “Our firm had a consultancy [with Japan Tobacco Industries] at that time. I was asked independently to do this [write the pamphlet]. I did not want to mix it up with the consultancy, but looking back I should have declared an interest.”

A leaked email revealed that Scruton, who was receiving a monthly retainer fee of £4500, had asked for a £1000 per month pay rise to place more pro-tobacco articles in prestigious newspapers and international magazines. He declared the amount to be “good value for money in a business largely conducted by shysters and sharks".[30]